Who Is Really In Charge?

Vol. III, No. 227 - Looking at the Balance between Elected Officals and Appointed Bureaucrats in Local Government

Photo by Brett Jordan on Unsplash

Local government is where democracy meets daily life. It shapes our downtowns where we shop and our neighborhoods we live in. The institutions provide the services we depend on, and often set the direction our communities take. Yet one of the most defining—and often overlooked—questions in local governance is: who truly leads? Are our elected officials setting the course, or have unelected bureaucrats quietly taken the helm?

Every community structures its government differently. Some operate under home rule charters, others under state-defined frameworks — the staturory form. But beneath these variations lies a consistent tension between democratic authority and administrative expertise. The challenge is not whether bureaucrats should play a role—they must—but whether they are leading rather than serving those chosen by the people.

When unelected officials dominate decision-making, the character of democracy begins to shift. Bureaucrats bring professionalism and continuity that can steady the machinery of government. Yet when they step beyond executing policy into defining it, the system loses its democratic pulse. Without electoral accountability, expertise can harden into insularity, and well-meaning administrators can mistake process for purpose.

At the heart of local self-government is legitimacy. Elected officials derive their authority from the consent of the governed. They are chosen, scrutinized, questioned, and—if necessary—replaced by the people. Bureaucrats are not. Their authority comes from appointment, not election. That gap matters because legitimacy is what binds policy to the public. When unelected officials govern without clear direction from elected leaders, citizens lose sight of who speaks for them.

Accountability weakens in that blur. Voters can hold a mayor or council member responsible, but an entrenched bureaucracy often operates beyond meaningful public oversight. When decisions are made behind closed doors or through procedural opacity, trust erodes. People stop engaging not out of apathy, but out of the belief that their voices no longer carry weight.

Another cost of bureaucracy-led governance is responsiveness. The nature of bureaucracy is to manage, not to innovate. Rules, procedures, and hierarchies that ensure stability can also stifle adaptation. Communities facing economic, environmental, or demographic changes need flexibility and vision. Those qualities are far more likely to come from elected officials answerable to public sentiment—not from administrative structures designed to resist disruption.

Local governments cannot function on political will alone. Expertise matters. But expertise must inform, not replace, the judgment of those elected to represent their constituents. When bureaucrats lead and officials follow, we risk losing the very responsiveness that gives local democracy its strength. The goal is not to vilify public servants but to clarify roles and restore equilibrium.

Elected officials must insist on setting direction—and bureaucrats must respect the boundaries of execution. That relationship requires courage on both sides: courage by elected leaders to engage deeply with complex issues, and courage by bureaucrats to find pride in stewardship rather than control.

The health of local democracy depends on this balance. Communities thrive when governance combines the accountability of elections with the competence of administration. They falter when process displaces purpose or when authority drifts from the public’s reach.

Local government works best when the people’s representatives lead, and professionals serve that leadership with integrity and skill. Anything less risks turning democracy into a managed enterprise rather than a shared civic endeavor.

Announcing our January Community Survey!

Every other month, this publication takes time to ask our readers how they feel about the happenings in their hometown! What are the challenges? What are the opportunities? Is your hometown headed in the right direction? Our survey is the easiest way for you to express your thoughts. Next month, this publication will report out on the results.

Thanks for your time and your participation! It is greatly appreciated!

A New Way to Support This Work

Our readers and subscribers have been asking for a new way to support the work being done here at Civic Capacity! Some of our readers do not like the idea of having to sign up for another subscription service. Some of our subscribers occasionally want to give more support through a one-time transaction.

Civic Capacity is partnering with “Buy Me A Coffee” to give our readers, subscribers and friends an opportunity to give one-time support to Civic Capacity. Personally, I don’t like coffee, but I will never turn down a nice iced tea. If you feel compelled to support this effort, just click the button below.

Thanks for reading today’s Civic Capacity Newsletter! Please feel free to share this information with your friends and neighbors.

Also, please consider subscribing to our work. If you are a free subscriber, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. For less than $1 a week, you can get timely and conversational updates about the decisions that are impacting you and your community!